DOCSLIB.ORG

State Strikebreaking Laws and the National Labor Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
State Strikebreaking Laws and the National Labor Policy View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law Catholic University Law Review Volume 30 Issue 3 Spring 1981 Article 7 1981 Federal Preemption: State Strikebreaking Laws and the National Labor Policy Frank Martorana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Frank Martorana, Federal Preemption: State Strikebreaking Laws and the National Labor Policy , 30 Cath. U. L. Rev. 521 (1981). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol30/iss3/7 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES FEDERAL PREEMPTION: STATE STRIKEBREAKING LAWS AND THE NATIONAL LABOR POLICY The preemption doctrine, as applied to the national labor relations laws and, more generally, to national labor policy, has been a much litigated area.' The doctrine, based on the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, provides that, where a conflict exists, state law must yield to the exercise of congressional authority.2 Congress has exerted its authority over labor relations in three major statutes: the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA);3 the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA),4 which amended and incorporated the NLRA;5 and Title VII of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA).6 The enactment of these comprehensive federal labor-man- agement relations laws indicates the recognition by Congress that the free flow of commerce requires a centralized regulatory scheme to ensure in- 1. See generally Cox, Labor Law Preemption Revisited, 85 HARV. L. REV. 1337 (1972). 2. The supremacy clause, found in U.S. CONST., art. VI, provides: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Au- thority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Supreme Court first addressed the issue of conflicting federal and state regulation in Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824), holding that federal legislation will prevail over state law when Congress has properly exercised its powers under the Constitution. The preemption doctrine has been advanced primarily through the exercise of commerce clause powers. See Engdahl, Preemptive Capabilityof FederalPower, 45 U. COLO. L. REV. 51, 52- 53 (1973). 3. 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-166 (1976) (Wagner Act). 4. 29 U.S.C. §§ 141-144, 151-167, 171, 187 (1976) (Taft-Hartley Act). 5. For the purposes of this article, references to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, will be cited as the LMRA or the "Act." References to the National Labor Relations Act alone will be cited as the NLRA. 6. 29 U.S.C. §§ 141, 153, 158-160, 164, 187 (1976) (Landrum-Griffith Act). Although this act amends sections of the LMRA, its primary purpose is the regulation of internal union affairs rather than union-management relations generally covered by the LMRDA. Section 164 of the LMRDA eliminates most preemption questions by providing that, except for a few expressly stated exceptions, state laws enjoy concurrent jurisdiction. Catholic University Law Review [Vol. 30:521 dustrial peace.7 Moreover, the creation of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), 8 charged with enforcing the LMRA, is further recognition that a successful federal labor-management relations policy requires uni- form interpretation and application of the labor laws.9 Accordingly, state law and state court jurisdiction in this field must often give way to federal exclusivity. io The Supreme Court has decided labor preemption questions in such areas as state regulation of union picketing," state tort claims,"2 and un- employment insurance for striking employees.' 3 The Court has attempted to establish rules applicable to classes of cases rather than reviewing each case on an ad hoc basis.' 4 The application of the preemption doctrine with its many exceptions, however, is rarely a simple task. As a result, there are areas in union-management affairs where states must act at their peril be- cause their authority to legislate may be susceptible to attack.' 5 One such area is state regulation of efforts by employers to replace striking employ- ees. Strikebreaking laws' 6 have been enacted, in one form or another, in thirty states."' Through these statutes, states have regulated employers and third parties who solicit and hire workers to replace strikers lawfully on strike. Few courts have grappled with the question of whether these statutes are subject to federal preemption. Those courts that have ad- dressed the issue, however, have not looked favorably on this exercise of 7. See Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County Dist. Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180, 190-91 (1978). See also 29 U.S.C. § 141 (1976) (Findings and Policies). 8. 29 U.S.C. § 153 (1976). 9. See note 7 supra. 10. See Cox, supra note 1, at 1338-39. il. See San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (states pre- empted in restraining peaceful union picketing). 12. See Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53 (1966) (states not preempted in granting damages for libelous statements made by a union agent during an organizing campaign); United Constr. Workers v. Laburnum Constr. Corp., 347 U.S. 656 (1954) (states not preempted in granting damages for loss of business due to union threats of violence). 13. See New York Tel. Co. v. New York State Dep't of Labor, 440 U.S. 519 (1979) (states not preempted in paying unemployment benefits to striking employees). 14. Farmer v. Carpenters Local 25, 430 U.S. 290, 296 n.7 (1977); Lodge 76, IAM v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm'n, 427 U.S. 132, 139 (1976); Street, Elec. Ry. & Motor Coach Employees v. L6ckridge, 403 U.S. 274, 289-90 (1971). 15. See generally Smith & Clark, Reappraisalof the Role of the States in Shaping Labor Relations Law, 1965 Wis. L. REV. 411. 16. The term "strikebreaker" connotes any person who replaces a striking employee by working in that striker's job. Strikebreaking laws refer to those laws regulating, in some form, the use of strikebreakers by employers. See [1974] LAB. REL. REP. (BNA), LRX 687. 17. See note 89 infra. 19811 State Strikebreaking Laws and Preemption state authority. For example, in Illinois v. Federal Tool & plastics,18 the Illinois Supreme Court applied the preemption doctrine to invalidate a state statute requiring an employer to advertise that a strike or lockout was in progress when soliciting replacement employees.' 9 The court reasoned that the right to hire replacements is an important economic weapon of an employer and that the state statute encumbers the employer's use of this weapon.2° The Superior Court of New Jersey reached a similar result in its recent decision in Chamber of Commerce v. New Jersey.2' In this case, the plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the New Jersey strikebreak- ing law prohibiting employers and third parties to a labor dispute from transporting within the state, or supplying from without the state, or other- wise recruiting persons to replace lawfully striking employees. The statute also prohibited third parties from recruiting any person to replace striking employees.22 The court held that such a law "affects the economic balance between employer and employee" and is thus preempted under the LMRA.23 Despite these decisions, the absence of federal circuit court or Supreme Court decisions in this area renders it unsettled. Furthermore, the prolifer- ation of state strikebreaker laws elevates the preemption issue to one of national concern and increases the likelihood of future challenges. This Note will review the decisions that have shaped the preemption doctrine in the labor field. It will then analyze the doctrine's possible effects on three catgegories of strikebreaking laws: restrictions on employer recruiting and 18. 62 Ill. 2d 549, 344 N.E.2d 1 (1975). 19. Act of July 16, 1941, § 1, ILL. REV. STAT. ch. 48, § 2(c), (d) (1971). Section 2(c) provides: "No employer shall advertise seeking to hire employees to replace employees on strike or locked out during any period when a strike or lockout is in progress ... unless it shall be stated in such advertisement that a strike or lockout is in progress at such place of business." 20. 62 Ill. 2d at 554, 344 N.E.2d at 4. 21. No. L-21147-79 (N.J. Super. Ct., June 13, 1980) (oral decision), appeal docketed, No. A-4767-79-TI (App. Div. Aug. 11, 1980). 22. N.J. STAT. ANN. § 34:13 C-I, 2, 3, (West 1965). Section 34:13 C-I provides in part: It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership or corporation to import from outside the boundaries of the State of New Jersey or to transport within the State of New Jersey or to supply from without the State any person or persons for the purpose of being or becoming employed with an object of: c) replacing in employment any employees of any employer who are lawfully on strike or who have been locked out. Section 34:13 C-2 provides in pertinent part: "It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation not directly involved in a strike or lockout, to recruit any person or persons for employment ...." 23.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reconciling Collective Bargaining with Employee Supervision of Management
    University of Pennsylvania Law Review FOUNDED 1852 Formerly American Law Register VOL. 137 NOVEMBER 1988 No. 1 ARTICLES RECONCILING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH EMPLOYEE SUPERVISION OF MANAGEMENT MICHAEL C. HARPERt I. INTRODUCTION A. The Challenge of Industrial Democracy The realities of economic organization in modern industrial states pose a critical dilemma for all who care about democratic ideals. Tech- nological developments and attendant complicated divisions of work have enabled these states to transform their citizens' standards of living; such developments have also, however, brought hierarchical economic organizations' that are unresponsive to the influence of most individual employees. A society that claims to be democratic cannot ignore this t Professor of Law, Boston University. The author wishes to thank participants in faculty workshops at Boston University and Northeastern University law schools, as well as Thomas Kohler, for their comments on an earlier draft of this Article. I also wish to thank Lori Bauer for her research assistance. I I See M. WEBER, THE THEORY OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION 245-48 (T. Parsons ed. 1947). 2 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 137:1 condition.' Enhancing individuals' control over their own lives requires institutions that will facilitate democratic decisionmaking about eco- nomic production as well as governmental authority. This Article contributes to thought about such institutions by inte- grating two potentially conflicting strategies to mitigate modern hierar- chical
    [Show full text]
  • Capitalist Meltdo-Wn
    "To face reality squarely; not to seek the line of least resistance; to call things by their right names; to speak t�e truth to the masses, no matter how bitter it may be; not to fear obstacles; to be true in little thi�gs as in big ones; to base one's progra.1!1 on the logic of the class struggle;. to be bold when the hour of action arrives-these are the rules of the Fourth International." 'Inequality, Unemployment & Injustice' Capitalist Meltdo-wn Global capitalism is currently in the grip of the most The bourgeois press is relentless in seizing on even the severe economic contraction since the Great Depression of smallest signs of possible "recovery" to reassure consumers the 1930s. The ultimate depth and duration of the down­ and investors that better days are just around thecomer. This turn remain to be seen, but there are many indicators that paternalistic" optimism" recalls similar prognosticationsfol­ point to a lengthy period of massive unemployment in the lowing the 1929 Wall Street crash: "Depression has reached imperialist camp and a steep fall in living standards in the or passed its bottom, [Assistant Secretary of Commerce so-called developing countries. Julius] Klein told the Detroit Board of Commerce, although 2 'we may bump along' for a while in returningto higher trade For those in the neocolonies struggling to eke out a living levels " (New Yo rk Times, 19 March 19 31).The next month, on a dollar or two a day, this crisis will literally be a matter in a major speech approved by President Herbert Hoover, of life and death.
    [Show full text]
  • GLOSSARY of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TERMS and SELECTED LABOR TOPICS
    GLOSSARY of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TERMS and SELECTED LABOR TOPICS ABEYANCE – The placement of a pending grievance (or motion) by mutual agreement of the parties, outside the specified time limits until a later date when it may be taken up and processed. ACTION - Direct action occurs when any group of union members engage in an action, such as a protest, that directly exposes a problem, or a possible solution to a contractual and/or societal issue. Union members engage in such actions to spotlight an injustice with the goal of correcting it. It further mobilizes the membership to work in concerted fashion for their own good and improvement. ACCRETION – The addition or consolidation of new employees or a new bargaining unit to or with an existing bargaining unit. ACROSS THE BOARD INCREASE - A general wage increase that covers all the members of a bargaining unit, regardless of classification, grade or step level. Such an increase may be in terms of a percentage or dollar amount. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE – An agent of the National Labor Relations Board or the public sector commission appointed to docket, hear, settle and decide unfair labor practice cases nationwide or statewide in the public sector. They also conduct and preside over formal hearings/trials on an unfair labor practice complaint or a representation case. AFL-CIO - The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations is the national federation of unions in the United States. It is made up of fifty-six national and international unions, together representing more than 12 million active and retired workers.
    [Show full text]
  • “They Outlawed Solidarity!”*
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Seattle University School of Law: Digital Commons “They Outlawed Solidarity!”* Richard Blum** Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . shall exist within the Unit- ed States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.1 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 984 I. LABOR RIGHTS AND THE PROHIBITION AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE…………………………………………………………….987 II. SECONDARY STRIKES AND NLRA ANTISTRIKE INJUNCTIONS ......... 989 A. Statutory Law ............................................................................... 989 B. Scenarios ...................................................................................... 991 C. Remedies ...................................................................................... 994 III. NLRB CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS AGAINST UNIONS AND THEIR MEMBERS .............................................................................................. 994 IV. ANTISTRIKE INJUNCTIONS IMPLICATE THE THIRTEENTH AND FIRST AMENDMENTS EVEN IF WORKERS CAN PERMANENTLY QUIT THEIR JOBS .............................................................................................................. 998 A. Quitting Individually v. Quitting Collectively .............................. 998 B. Quitting En Masse v. Striking ....................................................... 999 C. Secondary Strikes and the Pollock Principle ............................. 1003 D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legal and Political Implications of Placing Paid Union Organizers in the Employer's Workplace Victor J
    Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal Volume 16 | Issue 1 Article 1 1998 Salting the Mines: the Legal and Political Implications of Placing Paid Union Organizers in the Employer's Workplace Victor J. Van Bourg Ellyn Moscowitz Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlelj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Van Bourg, Victor J. and Moscowitz, Ellyn (1998) "Salting the Mines: the Legal and Political Implications of Placing Paid Union Organizers in the Employer's Workplace," Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal: Vol. 16: Iss. 1, Article 1. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlelj/vol16/iss1/1 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Van Bourg and Moscowitz: Salting the Mines: the Legal and Political Implications of Placin HOFSTRA LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW JOURNAL Volume 16, No. 1 Fall 1998 ARTICLES SALTING THE MINES: THE LEGAL AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF PLACING PAID UNION ORGANIZERS IN THE EMPLOYER'S WORKPLACE* Victor J. Van Bourg** Ellyn Moscowitz*** Mr. Chairman .... Thank you for Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly the opportunity to speak today. I oppose H.R. 3246, mistakenly am here to discuss the serious called the Fairness for Small Busi- * This article was made possible, in part, by a summer research grant from Chapman Uni- versity School of Law, while Ellyn Moscowitz was an Associate Professor of Law there.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Power of Nuisance Law: Labor Picketing and the Courts In
    Fordham Law School FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History Faculty Scholarship 1998 Political Power of Nuisance Law: Labor Picketing and the Courts in Modern England, 1871-Present, The Rachel Vorspan Fordham University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Labor and Employment Law Commons Recommended Citation Rachel Vorspan, Political Power of Nuisance Law: Labor Picketing and the Courts in Modern England, 1871-Present, The , 46 Buff. L. Rev. 593 (1998) Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/344 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BUFFALO LAW REVIEW VOLUME 46 FALL 1998 NUMBER 3 The Political Power of Nuisance Law: Labor Picketing and the Courts in Modern England, 1871-Present RACHEL VORSPANt INTRODUCTION After decades of decline, the labor movements in America and England are enjoying a resurgence. Unions in the United States are experiencing greater vitality and political visibility,' and in 1997 a Labour government took power in England for the first time in eighteen years.! This t Associate Professor of Law, Fordham University. A.B., 1967, University of California, Berkeley; M.A., 1968, Ph.D., 1975, Columbia University (English History); J.D., 1979, Harvard Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Negotiating the Crisis? Collective Bargaining in Europe During the Economic Downturn
    Working Paper No. 10 International Labour Office Geneva Negotiating the crisis? Collective bargaining in Europe during the economic downturn Vera Glassner Maarten Keune With support from the European Union March 2010 Industrial and Employment Relations Department (DIALOGUE) Working Paper No. 10 Negotiating the crisis? Collective bargaining in Europe during the economic downturn Vera Glassner and Maarten Keune Industrial and Employment Relations Department International Labour Office • Geneva March 2010 Copyright © International Labour Organization 2010 First published 2010 Publications of the International Labour Office enjoy copyright under Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention. Nevertheless, short excerpts from them may be reproduced without authorization, on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation, application should be made to ILO Publications (Rights and Permissions), International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland, or by email: [email protected]. The International Labour Office welcomes such applications. Libraries, institutions and other users registered in the United Kingdom with the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP [Fax: (+44) (0)20 7631 5500; email: [email protected]], in the United States with the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 [Fax: (+1) (978) 750 4470; email: [email protected]] or in other countries with associated Reproduction Rights Organizations, may make photocopies in accordance with the licences issued to them for this purpose. __________________________________________________________________________________________ ILO Cataloguing in Publication Data Glassner, Vera; Keune, Maarten Negotiating the crisis? collective bargaining in Europe during the economic downturn / Vera Glassner and Maarten Keune ; International Labour Office. - Geneva: ILO, 2010 1 v.
    [Show full text]
  • Going Karura Colliding Subjectivities and Labour Struggle in Nairobi's Gig Economy
    Going Karura Colliding subjectivities and labour struggle in Nairobi’s gig economy Gianluca Iazzolino Firoz Lalji Centre for Africa, Department of International Development, LSE Centre of Socio-legal Studies, University of Oxford [email protected] [email protected] Accepted: 23-Jun-2021 Abstract Based on an ethnography of Uber drivers in Nairobi, my article explores practices of contestation of the gig economy taking place both in the digital and physical space of the city. It argues that the labour struggle against the price policies and the control mechanisms of ride-hailing platforms like Uber foreground the tension between a subjectification from above, in which the platforms construct the drivers as independent contractors, and the shaping of subjectivities through the interaction of the drivers with the digital platforms and with one another. It also suggests that, through contestation, as the one catalysed by the call to ‘go Karura’, logging-off from the app, the workers connect their struggle to a broader critique of processes of exploitation, dependency and subalternity involving the state and international capital. While contributing to the growing literature on the gig economy in low and middle-income countries, my article brings the labour geography scholarship exploring how workers collectively shape economic spaces in conversation with the intellectual tradition of Italian Operaismo (Workerism). In doing so, it highlights the nexus of labour subjectivity and collective agency as mutually constitutive. Introduction On the morning of the 2nd July 2018, about a hundred vehicles converged at the main intersections in downtown Nairobi, grounding the rush-hour traffic of the Kenyan capital to a halt.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Matter of United States of America BEFORE the FEDERAL
    United States of America BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL In the Matter of UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, ATLANTA, GA And Case No. 19 FSIP 056 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2883 ❑ECISION AND ORDER This case, filed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga.(Agency or Management) on July 2, 2019, concerns a dispute over 3 articles in the parties' successor collective-bargaining agreement(CBA) and was filed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §7119 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. The American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2883(Union) represents approximately 350 employees in medical and non-medical positions. The mission of the Agency is to protect public health and safety through the control and prevention of disease, injury, and disability in the United States and internationally. The American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2883(Union) represents approximately 2,000 bargaining-unit employees in a variety of positions at the Agency's Atlanta and Miami facilities. The parties are signatory to a collective bargaining agreement(CBA) that expired on July 17, 2017. The agreement rolls over on an annual basis. The Federal Service Impasses Panel (Panel) asserted jurisdiction over this dispute in the manner discussed below. BARGAINING AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties had seven weeks of bilateral negotiations between October 2017 and November 2018. They received the assistance of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services(FMCS) for 3 days in January 2019. During this time, the Union alleged that five of Management's articles contained permissive topics of negotiations that the Union had no obligation to bargain over.
    [Show full text]
  • Precarious Work and Human Rights
    International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations 8 Rampe du Pont Rouge, Petit Lancy, CH-1213 Geneva, Switzerland Tel : +41 22 793 22 33 ; Fax : +41 22 793 22 38 ; e-mail :[email protected]; www.iuf.org Precarious Work: Undermining Human Rights Any meaningful investigation of the relationship between business and human rights must address the rights impact of the accelerating dissolution of what the ILO and others refer to as the "standard employment relationship" (i.e. direct, permanent employment) and the rise of precarious work. This note does not attempt to account for the role of institutions like the World Bank and the OECD in pushing for even more precarious work relations, rewarding and rating countries for their efforts to abolish direct employment. Agriculture, which still has the world's largest work force, is almost entirely built on precarious labour, and there is a vital connection between this and the fact that agricultural workers who help to feed the world are often among the most food insecure. The relationship between poverty and deepening inequality, and the growth of precarious work in rich and poor countries alike, has been well documented. The purpose here is to highlight a phenomenon which has not received the attention it requires, i.e. the increasingly widespread use of indirect, precarious employment relations to weaken trade union organization and bargaining power. It is in this context that precarious work emerges as a fundamental human rights issue demanding a strong response rooted in a comprehensive human rights framework. The ILO defines the standard employment relationship in these terms: The traditional pattern of the employment relationship, or standard employment relationship, has for many years been that of full time work, under a contract of employment for unlimited duration, with a single employer, and protected against unjustified dismissal.
    [Show full text]
  • Configurations of Masculinity in the Pittston Coal Strike
    POLITICSKAREN BECKWITH & SOCIETY Gender Frames and Collective Action: Configurations of Masculinity in the Pittston Coal Strike KAREN BECKWITH This article develops the concept of gender frame for understanding major transfor- mations in the collective action repertoires of social movements. Focusing on the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) strike against the Pittston Coal Group (1989-90), the article discusses the UMWA’s traditional collective action repertoire and its innovation of nonviolent protest, widely employed during the strike. Inter- views with major activists and UMWA staff and officers illustrate how the UMWA employed a gender frame of mining masculinities to initiate the new nonviolent strike action. The article concludes by suggesting how collective action repertoires and framing are linked and encouraging future research on gender frames in social movements. “It is precisely the masculinity of mining as a task that gives gender its relevance.”1 Coal mining is one of the most male-predominant industries in the United States. The nature of the work—underground, dangerous, and physically demanding—has marked it as one of the most romantically “masculine” occupa- tions. The popular image of the coal miner is that of a man: brave, physically strong, militant, face blackened with coal dust, fiercely independent, anachronis- My work on comparative mining strikes owes much to my colleagues in political science, women’s studies, and labor studies. I have benefited from discussions with Sidney Tarrow, Lee Ann Banaszak, Chris Howell, Mary Fainsod Katzenstein, David Meyer, Eve Sandberg, Mary Margaret Fonow, Myra Young Armstead, Mary Collar, Eric Karolak, Greg Kaster, Paul Mishler, Ruth Needleman, and Ellen Todd.
    [Show full text]
  • If Not Us, Who?
    Dario Azzellini (Editor) If Not Us, Who? Workers worldwide against authoritarianism, fascism and dictatorship VSA: Dario Azzellini (ed.) If Not Us, Who? Global workers against authoritarianism, fascism, and dictatorships The Editor Dario Azzellini is Professor of Development Studies at the Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas in Mexico, and visiting scholar at Cornell University in the USA. He has conducted research into social transformation processes for more than 25 years. His primary research interests are industrial sociol- ogy and the sociology of labour, local and workers’ self-management, and so- cial movements and protest, with a focus on South America and Europe. He has published more than 20 books, 11 films, and a multitude of academic ar- ticles, many of which have been translated into a variety of languages. Among them are Vom Protest zum sozialen Prozess: Betriebsbesetzungen und Arbei­ ten in Selbstverwaltung (VSA 2018) and The Class Strikes Back: Self­Organised Workers’ Struggles in the Twenty­First Century (Haymarket 2019). Further in- formation can be found at www.azzellini.net. Dario Azzellini (ed.) If Not Us, Who? Global workers against authoritarianism, fascism, and dictatorships A publication by the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung VSA: Verlag Hamburg www.vsa-verlag.de www.rosalux.de This publication was financially supported by the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung with funds from the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) of the Federal Republic of Germany. The publishers are solely respon- sible for the content of this publication; the opinions presented here do not reflect the position of the funders. Translations into English: Adrian Wilding (chapter 2) Translations by Gegensatz Translation Collective: Markus Fiebig (chapter 30), Louise Pain (chapter 1/4/21/28/29, CVs, cover text) Translation copy editing: Marty Hiatt English copy editing: Marty Hiatt Proofreading and editing: Dario Azzellini This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution–Non- Commercial–NoDerivs 3.0 Germany License.
    [Show full text]